"Now, create a Goal your character will pursue and two Obstructions, which become part of the personality of two other characters at the table. Hand them their Obstruction cards, and keep your Goal card."

-I got the beginings of an idea here, Tony. Feel free to toss it or modify it as need be.

-Okay, everybody starts off with an index card. Each player gets to *start* their own character. To start a character, you give him a name, a personality type (bully, nerd, jock, etc), and a power (if your game has powerz). Then you pass your card to the person on your left. They can add a veto, a power, or an obstruction. They aren't allowed to add something the last player added. Once they finish, they pass it to the next person on their left. Who then adds another veto, power, or obstruction. And then passes it. Eventually, it index card gets back to the person who origonally made the character. He gets a Currency Card (or whatever you call the cards they actually play with in the game) for each Veto, Power, and Obstruction written on his index card. That is what builds the hand that he will now play with.

-This way, everyone adds a bit to everyone's character. The only thing is, there ought to be some kind of reward mechanism, IMO, for adding each type of component to a persons character. Don't know what that would be tho.

Some elements shouldn't be rewarded when they happen, they should be rewarded when they almost happen, but not quite. Does that make sense?

That makes sense. However, I think you need to be careful in structuring the veto rules and how they are used in the game so you don't have one player describe some awesome thing that they're really invested in and another player tells them it didn't actually happen. It needs to really "almost happen" rather than happen and then get retconned.

That makes sense. However, I think you need to be careful in structuring the veto rules and how they are used in the game so you don't have one player describe some awesome thing that they're really invested in and another player tells them it didn't actually happen. It needs to really "almost happen" rather than happen and then get retconned.

Well, my experience using the "Not Yet" rule in Capes is that the veto it implies is very, very seldom applied. But maybe that's because it's an automatic veto. Nobody has to choose to apply it. So it's like saying "PCs aren't going to die ... they can come close, but we never actually narrate their death." Because everybody knows that the rule will apply, nobody tests it. They don't narrate "And then your guy is burned to ashes and blows away on the wind," and look to see whether you're going to veto it. That's just not an okay narration (by the rules) no matter what anyone thinks about it.

A game where a player character can die, but the player is allowed (but not required) to veto that death is a very different game. Then you get the whole "Narrate, and then look to see whether it will get vetoed" dynamic. More often, people will ask permission (either explicitly or implicitly): like "You okay with your character dying here?" "Yeah, sure, it's a heroic sacrifice. Go for it!"

Now, what if a veto in Misery Bubblegum were restrained in the following specific ways?

When a player is holding a card for their own character, or the card is uncontrolled, the veto always applies. Example: Ranma has "Machismo" which has "Veto: Ranma's boy-type does anything unmanly." Tom (playing Ranma) is not allowed to have Ranma do something unmanly, any more than any other player is allowed to narrate it for his character. While he holds that card, he cannot (for instance) cry. At all. No matter the provocation.

When a card is held by a player other than the one playing the character then the veto applies at all times except when they are GM. When they are GM, they can choose to apply the veto or not, as it suits them. At other times, the veto is in force, as it would be were the card held by its original owner.

That reduces the issue to two fairly familiar cases: One, the veto applies automatically, without anyone needing to be consulted. Two, the veto is subsumed under the GM's right to be gatekeeper for all narration. It strikes me that these two cases combine much of the same motivating power (you still don't want Ryoga's player holding Ranma's machismo) but cleaves sufficiently close to tradition to keep everyone comfortable and to minimize the problem of false starts. What do you think?

You mean when you are the GM? Yeah. That would work too, in terms of making the override of the veto part of the normal expanse of GM prerogative. I think it would still be comfortable, and not throw off people's mode of play.

The reason I lean toward having the player not be able to override that veto themselves is that it makes a statement about ... well, how we play characters and how we behave as people. It says that the only way you're going to get outside of your own defense mechanisms is by making yourself vulnerable to another person.

Ranma's machismo is a strength, and it's a terrific defense mechanism, and it's also a prison. It lets him shrug off a lot of attacks on his personality and character (particularly by his father). It also stands as a constant barrier between him and Akane.

When he wants to open up to Akane, he gets vetoed. He doesn't get to just decide that he can be soft and unmanly when it suits his purpose. It takes more of an effort (and more risk) to override his own personality. In game turns, if he wants to do that then he needs to (a) get that Machismo card into Akane's control and (b) try to be unmanly and reveal his emotions when she is the GM, and is totally in charge.

That's a lot of risk, in many ways. And that's by intent. Each of us has walls around our heart. And we each have the key, but we can't use it ourselves. We can only offer the key to someone else, and hope.